- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:14:25 +0100
- To: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I just implemented the new (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/
2005-05-03) result format, and I have some notes w.r.t. Design
Objective 4.7 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#d4.7
$ ls -Sl *
-rw-r--r-- 1 swh swh 226727 May 11 09:19 dawg-res-new.xml
-rw-r--r-- 1 swh swh 156310 May 11 09:19 dawg-res-old.xml
-rw-r--r-- 1 swh swh 2340 May 11 09:18 dawg-res-new.xml.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 swh swh 1993 May 11 09:18 dawg-res-old.xml.gz
dawg-res-old-* are the results of an arbitrary query against some
arbitrary data using the result format working draft,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-XMLres-20041221/ , dawg-res-new-*
is from my implementation of http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/
The XML is not optimal, I made no effort to compress is, and its pretty
printed, plus I wont hold up the data or queries are being representative
(its a bunch of FOAF files and a SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH ?g { ?a ?b ?c } }
query), but I think the numbers are interesting anway.
FWIW, I still prefer the new format, even though its more verbose.
- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 09:14:39 UTC